APOLITICAL 01/10/25
LINKEDIN 01/10/25
By Michael Shank

A new poll published this month shows a surge in Republican trust in the accuracy of the national vote count for the U.S. presidential election. Roughly 6 in 10 Republicans reported “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of confidence in the vote count, and that’s up from just 2 in 10 Republicans last October. Democrats’ trust in the vote count, in contrast, decreased over the same time period.

This recently restored Republican faith will likely be fleeting, as distrust in the political system continues to be the American public’s default. Americans’ trust in government remains low: just over 20 percent say they trust the government to do what is right always or most of the time.

Americans’ trust in government is some of the lowest it’s been in seven decades of polling. And those low levels of trust is what led tens of millions of Americans to boycott the ballot last November. It’s also one of the reasons why voters defeated the candidate they perceived as the incumbent – Vice President Kamala Harris – because they distrusted the government.

When trust in government is low, and distrust among Americans is high, not only is voter turnout compromised – as people stay away from the ballot box – but so too are the policies that stem from the policymakers who get elected by that poor, unrepresentative turnout. It’s a vicious cycle that takes us further away from a healthy democracy, not closer to it. And it impacts everything we do to form a more perfect union in the United States.

How can Washington fix these chronically low trust numbers going forward? There is a way to address distrust, and it starts at the top with policymakers. It’ll require a sea change in how elected officials communicate with and serve their constituencies. Recently published research, based on extensive focus groups with Americans across the political spectrum, identifies three main approaches that are critical to restoring trust in government.

First, policymakers need to be frank with voters about the challenge, the struggle, the imperfect and the pitfall. For example, when U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris suggested during her presidential campaign that she would continue the policies of her predecessor, U.S. President Joe Biden, she missed an opportunity to build trust by being frank about what has and hasn’t worked in the Biden administration.

It’s understandable why policymakers prefer to show the packaged win, but it’s often the sharing of the struggle that’s most compelling to the public. If distrust is the default emotion among voters, with nearly 60 percent of Americans inclined to distrust, no amount of polished presentation is going to win them over anyway. It’s smarter to be frank, then, and acknowledge where things haven’t worked, the previous challenges involved, and how constituent support is essential in tackling that work together.

It’s a delicate balance – to acknowledge the shortfall, then pivot to how you’ll fix it – but it’s better than defensively defending what hasn’t worked. It’s an aikido martial arts approach versus a boxing approach. Research from Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management backs up this approach. By admitting a fault, leaders are perceived as more authentic and more desirable to work with – and with no changes to perceived competency. The Harris campaign, then, would’ve been wise to reflect on current and past administrations, what fell short, and how they’d fix it.

Second, policymakers need to be real with voters on what’s possible going forward. For example, had the Harris campaign been willing to deviate and distance themselves from the Biden administration, then “real talk” would’ve been possible and appropriate. Imagine the Harris campaign talking frankly about what didn’t work in the Biden administration. That could’ve been the beginning of a trust rebuilding process.

When distrust is the societal default, a better approach that can help bridge the distrust divide is to outline a way forward that passes the smell test. One can still ladder up to what’s eventually possible, with that larger policy promise, but it needs to resonate credibly with the constituency first. And while overpromising has a role in politics to both understand voter preference and signal policy goals to Congress, false promises veer quickly into manipulation, misinformation, and disinformation, according to a recent study by Washington University. And if anything, we need to be dismantling disinformation infrastructure not contributing to it.

Third, policymakers need to be transparent throughout this entire process when communicating the challenges and opportunities. This is where the Harris campaign was undermined both by a firm commitment to continue the Biden administration’s policy agenda and insufficient time to outline, and be transparent about, a new Harris roadmap. Had Biden stepped down sooner, then Harris could have initiated a more transparent policymaking process with room to breathe, crowdsource with her constituency, focus group, and refine.

What the research is telling us is that when fashioning a way forward, the public wants to be a part of it. Don’t exclude them. Bring them along in all aspects of the process. That’s how we rebuild trust and simultaneously tackle misinformation.

Transparent communication is just the groundwork, and a crowdsourced policy process can yield even greater results and higher rewards in building trust. That’s why governments across the United States are utilizing participatory budgeting and appreciative inquiry processes to do just that. Leverage local expertise in a crowdsourced way while rebuilding trust.

None of this is easy and in today’s constant campaign culture, the opposite extremes are often the default. The challenges aren’t recognized, the promises get more grandiose, and very little of the process is shared or co-created transparently with the public. But with this business as usual comes more distrust, more disinformation, and more disengagement.

It’s worth trying something new, then. To the candidates of the future, show where you fell short, respond with a realistic assessment of the way forward, and communicate and co-create that process with the public. That’s how you rebuild a more trusting America.

Dr. Michael Shank is adjunct faculty at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs and a visiting professor at George Mason University’s Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution.